Archives of internal medicine · 1994
Peripherally inserted central catheters in an acute-care hospital.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lam S, Scannell R, Roessler D, Smith M A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheterization is a relatively new approach for intravenous therapy in acute-care hospitals. Few studies are available on peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) used in adult patients in an acute-care setting. We examine the natural history and outcome of PICC use in our hospital.
METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of all hospitalized patients who had PICCs inserted in an acute-care, metropolitan teaching hospital for any reason from July 1991 through July 1992. Patients who had PICCs inserted, used, and then removed in the same hospitalization were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 135 PICCs were inserted in 114 patients. Six PICCs (4.4%) were inserted in intensive care unit settings and 129 (95.6%) in general medical or surgical service. The mean duration catheters were in place before removal was 14.1 days. Sixty-three catheters (46.7%) were removed following completion of therapy. The rate of PICC-related infection was 2.2% (three catheters). The occlusion rate was higher for 20-gauge catheters (18.4%) than for 18-gauge catheters (8.2%) (P = .08). When the rate of complications was compared as a function of catheter use (total parenteral nutrition vs any other use), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .12). Overall complications related to catheter insertion and removal were uncommon.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our study, we conclude that the PICC provides a reasonable and safe alternative to other centrally placed venous devices. In addition, the convenience of maintaining a PICC compared with peripheral intravenous access makes this an attractive method for in-hospital use.
METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of all hospitalized patients who had PICCs inserted in an acute-care, metropolitan teaching hospital for any reason from July 1991 through July 1992. Patients who had PICCs inserted, used, and then removed in the same hospitalization were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 135 PICCs were inserted in 114 patients. Six PICCs (4.4%) were inserted in intensive care unit settings and 129 (95.6%) in general medical or surgical service. The mean duration catheters were in place before removal was 14.1 days. Sixty-three catheters (46.7%) were removed following completion of therapy. The rate of PICC-related infection was 2.2% (three catheters). The occlusion rate was higher for 20-gauge catheters (18.4%) than for 18-gauge catheters (8.2%) (P = .08). When the rate of complications was compared as a function of catheter use (total parenteral nutrition vs any other use), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .12). Overall complications related to catheter insertion and removal were uncommon.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our study, we conclude that the PICC provides a reasonable and safe alternative to other centrally placed venous devices. In addition, the convenience of maintaining a PICC compared with peripheral intravenous access makes this an attractive method for in-hospital use.